Video: Yes, Ted Cruz just put out what looks like a presidential campaign ad

posted at 3:57 pm on March 28, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Examiner, you can thank Ben Howe for producing this. Is it a presidential campaign teaser? The last line, borrowing Obama’s campaign slogan from 2008, seems freighted with extra significance. I’d never seen something like this from Cruz before either. At first blush, I thought maybe it was his way of stealing a little thunder from Rand Paul’s overt presidential maneuvering lately. Here’s Cruz reminding conservatives that Rand won’t be the only game in town next year.

But after looking through his campaign YouTube account, I realize I’m wrong. Cruz has released at least two ads similar to this one since being elected to the Senate, one last October right after the shutdown ended and another a week before Christmas. Maybe this is just something that politicians with big followings, who may or may not run for national office soon, do now in the age of viral media. Every once in a while they’ll put an ad online for no specific reason beyond polishing their brand and giving their supporters something to share on Facebook and Twitter. Coke and Pepsi don’t advertise only when they’re planning to release a new product; advertising is a constant for major companies, and now that ads can be produced and disseminated cheaply, it’s probably a constant for savvy pols too. Or rather, will be a constant: I checked Elizabeth Warren’s campaign YouTube account, figuring that she’s the closest thing on the left to a Cruz analogue as a grassroots hero who recently joined the Senate, and found that it hasn’t been updated since she was elected. Maybe that’ll change — or maybe the fact that Cruz is doing this and she isn’t really is a sign of which of them is more serious about running for president. Hmmmm.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I checked Elizabeth Warren’s campaign YouTube account, figuring that she’s the closest thing on the left to a Cruz analogue as a grassroots hero who recently joined the Senate, and found that it hasn’t been updated since she was elected.

If anyone is curious – the music is by “Two Steps from Hell” track titled, “Protectors of the Earth” which is rather fitting but for a campaign add I highly recommend a more stirring TSFH track, such as “invincible” or “Heart of Courage” or my personal workout tune…Makes me want to strip naked, grab a sword, climb up to my roof and yell at the sky…

Dave, saying “Jesus'” name isn’t reciting the Bible, nor is it preaching… again be honest you can’t stand religious people, you had a bad experience in Sunday School, and so now there existence in the public eye annoys you…

You and Good Lt. Are just “feeling outraged” or “uncomfortable’… that’s not a Constitutionally Protected Right…

You ARE making a test, no one who professes their faith can hold office… it’s a test… now, only Agnostics or Atheists can hold office… no different than saying only Christians or Muslims or Baptists or Sufi may hold office.

You bring YOUR ideology to the public sphere, the believer has the same right… just because yours is, avowedly, a secular one gives it no ore inherent right to be enacted than the Commissioner’s.

Right now there are only two people hinted at running that I would vote for. Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal.

Rick Perry is an Open Borders pro amnesty reject.
Rand Paul is an open borders pro amnesty reject.
Scott Walker is an open borders pro amnesty reject.

You cannot stand for Conservatism and support amnesty. Amnesty would create 10 to 20 million net new democratic votes to replace conservative votes. You cannot win national elections if your president signs it into law.

Does Ted Cruz Realize He’s Not Running for Office This Year?
His new video is just the most recent political ad to resemble a Hollywood blockbuster.

By Elahe Izadi and Emma Roller
March 28, 2014
***************
If you didn’t think Ted Cruz was mulling a run for president, watch this new video from his Senate campaign committee. You know, in case those Iowa trips didn’t convince you already.

The video culls portions of Cruz’s recent CPAC speech, highlighting lines about Obamacare, the IRS, and the Constitution, accompanied by dramatic instrumental music. It’s the Ted Cruz version of Braveheart, basically. It also makes you wonder why politicians don’t just provide a real-time score of their speeches as they’re delivering them.

Such dramatic political campaign videos have come into vogue the past couple of campaign cycles. Add dramatic strings, thunder claps, a flickering television set, ominous pictures of the White House, dystopian shots of abandoned buildings, and people with their heads in their hands, and voilà! You’ve got an grade-A political blockbuster.

A bunch of these campaign ads closely resemble specific movie trailers. Cruz’s CPAC speech almost resembles Mel Gibson’s monologue from the end of Braveheart:

By Elahe Izadi and Emma Roller
March 28, 2014

If you didn’t think Ted Cruz was mulling a run for president, watch this new video from his Senate campaign committee. You know, in case those Iowa trips didn’t convince you already.

The video culls portions of Cruz’s recent CPAC speech, highlighting lines about Obamacare, the IRS, and the Constitution, accompanied by dramatic instrumental music. It’s the Ted Cruz version of Braveheart, basically. It also makes you wonder why politicians don’t just provide a real-time score of their speeches as they’re delivering them.

Such dramatic political campaign videos have come into vogue the past couple of campaign cycles. Add dramatic strings, thunder claps, a flickering television set, ominous pictures of the White House, dystopian shots of abandoned buildings, and people with their heads in their hands, and voilà! You’ve got an grade-A political blockbuster.

A bunch of these campaign ads closely resemble specific movie trailers. Cruz’s CPAC speech almost resembles Mel Gibson’s monologue from the end of Braveheart:

Now, we have this ad for Gov. Chris Christie that criticizes President Obama’s jobs plan. It’s called The Re-Awakening:

Which is pretty much the trailer for the second Matrix movie (not even the first!).

Conservative and Tea Party Republicans have been under constant assault by the GOPe. Alienated, mocked, declared war on, and stabbed in the back at every opportunity.

Just yesterday in the House, the GOPe stabbed Conservatives in the back yet again.

Some in the GOPe “leadership” and their consultants have even hinted at wanting to replace the Conservative base of the party with new moderate (Democrat-Lite) Republicans they think will support them after Amnesty is rammed through with Dim support.

“Replace” may have been the wrong word, but I think you know what he’s saying.

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Yes I know what he’s saying. It just struck me as funny.

And if the conservative voters ARE leaving I don’t want to be left behind :)

More seriously I think the new immigrants will be replacing black voters. The African American population will be decreasing due to the very policies they support – the ravages of welfare dependency and abortion. Hopefully we can find candidates that will reach out to them as they see this happening in their communities.

Effectively taking the vote from 60 million democrat and 60 million Republican to 80 to 90 million democrat and 65 to 70 million Republican.

Remember, last time amnesty went through something like 6 million out of 1.5 million were amnestied and around 12 million were imported as family reunification.

Today they are talking about 11 to 12 million, we know it is higher. lets just say it is 18 million, and they all bring another 36 million relatives here. 54 million new citizens, about 20 to 30 million new voters at the low end of a realistic amnesty. 70% of which are going to be democrat votes based on legal immigrating Hispanics, of which I would argue illegal aliens by and large being unwilling to live within the law are even less likely to be republican, but lets go with the 70%. 70% of 20 million votes is 14 million new democrat votes and the republicans do not get the other 30% but typically 25% as they vote third party too. So Republicans get 5 million new votes. Net new Democrat votes at the lower end of the scale turns in 9 million to their advantage.

Yes I agree. But I think (wishful thinking??) that other demographic trends and better outreach to the minority communities may help.

kcewa on March 28, 2014 at 5:38 PM

What, in a hundred years? Adding these illegal aliens immediately turns all demographics against us in every single way. Once made legal within two presidential elections the Democrats will be a permanent majority.

Dave, saying “Jesus’” name isn’t reciting the Bible, nor is it preaching… again be honest you can’t stand religious people, you had a bad experience in Sunday School, and so now there existence in the public eye annoys you…

You and Good Lt. Are just “feeling outraged” or “uncomfortable’… that’s not a Constitutionally Protected Right…

You ARE making a test, no one who professes their faith can hold office… it’s a test… now, only Agnostics or Atheists can hold office… no different than saying only Christians or Muslims or Baptists or Sufi may hold office.

You bring YOUR ideology to the public sphere, the believer has the same right… just because yours is, avowedly, a secular one gives it no ore inherent right to be enacted than the Commissioner’s.

Has the same tenor and feel of this one of Sarah Palin’s. Can’t remember if that was released before or after she bowed out of the 2012 election, but it certainly had the feel that she was prepared to run.

We could do FAR worse than Cruz. After Palin, he’s my next choice. I’m not sanguine about senators…it’s best to have someone who’s had executive experience…but so far, Cruz has kept walking the walk as well as talking the talk. I’d take him over choices like Rubio, Christie and Ryan.

“There is no doubt that higher state taxes burden choices made by individuals regarding how they spend their hard-earned dollars and by firms with respect to how they invest their profits. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) released a report entitled the “2013 State Tax Cut Roundup” noting that 18 state legislatures took pro-growth steps by substantially cutting taxes during their respective 2013 legislative sessions. As noted in the report, most states cut their income tax rate and the least cuts were made to state sales tax rates.

Texas made progress by making changes to its franchise tax, also known as the margin tax. This tax applies to the taxable margin of most businesses at either a 0.5% rate for wholesalers and retailers or 1% rate for all others.

ALEC notes in their report the following:

This legislative session, the Lone Star State further solidified its reputation as an excellent state in which to do business. A measure reforming the economically damaging Texas margins tax was approved. Governor Perry had asked the legislature to tackle the issue and the result was a tax cut of more than $1 billion to Texas businesses. The measure included adding a $1 million deduction for Texas businesses and lowered the rates on all businesses, regardless of size.

This reform, paired with the fact that Texas does not levy a personal income tax, signifies a re-dedication to the pro-growth tax and fiscal policies that have made Texas the economic powerhouse that it is today….”

And from the same site

“My recent op-ed published in the Investor’s Business Daily compared U.S. employment growth during the sluggish recovery under Obamanomics with the robust recovery under Reaganomics.

President Obama’s big-government fiscal policies promote uncertainty and crowding out of the private sector; whereas, President Reagan’s limited-government policies promoted risk-taking and innovation—keys for economic growth and job creation.

These different policy prescriptions for a weak economy and labor market had substantially different results. To summarize these results, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz said it quite well, “Reaganomics means you start a business in your garage. Obamanomics means you move into your parent’s garage.”

To compare these lackluster employment data under President Obama’s prescriptions of larger government intervention with President Reagan’s prescriptions of limited government interference, I calculate the net jobs added during the current 54-month expansion (June 2009 to December 2013) with changes in the employment-population ratio during the 1980’s 54-month expansion (November 1982 to May 1987).

With approximately 10,000 baby boomers retiring daily and high employment volatility of those between the ages of 16 to 24-years-old, let’s consider the 25 to 54-year-old group.

Historically, this age group faired quite well during past expansions. However, many of them have moved into their parent’s garage during the current expansion, whereby there were 5.8 million fewer 24 to 54-year-olds employed in December 2013 than when the recession began in December 2007.

During the 54-month expansion, monthly net job decline for this employment group has been about (-11,000) per month for a total net jobs loss of about (-587,000).

This age group had a much different opportunity for employment during the 1982-87 expansion. The total employment increase was 12.5 million, or 231,000 net jobs added per month. Clearly, there were two different results based on the underlying economic fundamentals and the policies that interfered with market forces.

By using the calculation described above for this age group to consider the employment figures under the limited-government prescriptions by President Reagan, average monthly net job gains would be 128,000 for a total of 7 million new jobs.

Clearly, there is a stark contrast between the employment gains for 25 to 54-year-olds under the policy framework of President Obama (Obama Employment) and President Reagan (Adjusted Reagan Employment (’82-’87 Growth)) (see figure below).

This age group would not only have 7.6 million more people employed under Reagan’s prescriptions compared with the Obama’s policies, but they would also have 1.8 million more people employed compared with before the recession. Employment growth at this rate would have closed the pre-recession employment gap by June 2012.

Another wildly different governing philosophy from the one by President Obama is right here in Texas. The Texas model of no income tax, smart regulations, and modest government spending has been a recipe for job creation success.

Let’s imagine that U.S. total employment grew at the same rate as in Texas during the 54-month expansion. By calculating the monthly U.S. employment gains from the percentage changes in jobs added in Texas, we can compare the two (see figure below).

These estimates show that the U.S. total employment would have reached its pre-recession peak in October 2011, something it had yet to do in December 2013. By December 2013, there would be 7 million more Americans employed.

Of course, it is not possible to have an exact counterfactual. There are economic, demographic, and labor market differences during different periods and regions that cannot be accounted for, so these calculations provide only an indication of what might happen during the most recent period.

However, there is a clear historical record of a prescription that brings people out of their parent’s garage and back into creating businesses in their own garage: limited-government policies by President Reagan and the Texas model.

These wholly different outcomes not only improve the lives of millions, but it also benefits the neediest among us. Left on its own, the unhampered market is the best path to prosperity….”

Some people are apparently incapable of defending someone from what is obviously a stupid smear unless they support that person. Unlike you I am not motivated to so limit myself. It is way too early to pick the nominee but at this point I like Paul, Cruz, Jeb Bush and Christie – in that order. I have misgivings with respect to each of these people. None are nearly as qualified as Romney was. I will however support the GOP nominee whomever that might be as I understand that politics is about choices. The Harridan is anathema to me.

Funny how many people always pick the pro amnesty scum as their favorites. Do you really hate conservatism that much?

astonerii on March 28, 2014 at 8:12 PM

“Do you really hate conservatism that much?” Heh….

There were at least three other times we had smaller discussions. Maybe you should get a notepad and write this down. If the Republican nominee is Romney, then astonerii and his extended family will be voting for Obama.
astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 11:54 AM

The point of voting Obama is to try to prevent Romney from ruining the brand name. Like Bush did….
astonerii on February 2, 2012 at 7:38 PM

I vote Obama if the only other choice on the ballot is Romney.
astonerii on October 9, 2011 at 8:46 PM

I will convince my 28 member extended family to vote Obama and let the Democrats take the responsibility for the next four years.
You can b!tch and moan all you want about how unfair it is….
astonerii on January 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I will never in my life vote for Willard Mitt Romney. I will vote in this election.
astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 11:10 PM

I will vote. It will not be for Willard Mitt Romney. If you cannot live with another 4 years of Obama, pity to you for being such a pathetically weak person.
astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 11:22 PM

I will actively vote against Romney, I will vote for the conservative in the Senate and House. […] I will not go third party, I will go for the throat and vote direct for Obama. Parties do not learn lessons, but the electorate does!
[…] Vote for Obama, vote for the conservative for congress. Got it.
astonerii on February 1, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I would vote Obama just to shut people like you up.
astonerii on November 29, 2011 at 8:20 PM

I see Romney as a bigger long term threat to the nation than Obama.
astonerii on April 5, 2012 at 7:09 PM

I will vote Obama if there is not a solid true conservative with enough backbone to reverse the direction of the nation.
astonerii on April 18, 2011 at 12:29 PM

I vote Obama if Romney is on the ticket. I will not go so far as to send a donation or put a sticker on my bumper, I never put stickers on my bumper, but I will vote.
astonerii on July 17, 2011 at 5:42 PM

I can vote for Obama.This gives the most value. I am young enough to fight in a civil war today and a decade or so more, thus if I vote Obama, and he can bring the collapse of the American dollar and our economy faster than the R, my vote for him gives me value.
[…] voting Obama if the primary voters decide to pick a progressive is my next best option.
astonerii on June 17, 2011 at 8:47 PM

Perry went to Mexico and said what he wants is an open flow of people between the two countries.
He said the only requirement for that open flow was that they Mexicans obtain a 24 month long work permit.
Then he refuses to require e-verify.
Then he attacks Arizona’s law that has police checking people’s papers.
That is an open border policy with amnesty included.
It comes with the lovely regressive policy goal of keeping people here in America who have no desire to assimilate and learn our culture indefinitely.

Perry signed a letter to congress in 2006 demanding that the legislatures pass comprehensive immigration reform. There was not a single bill out there back then which was going to pass without amnesty. That was the reason for the conservative revolt, and here was Perry pushing to make certain comprehensive immigration reform be passed. We all remember this. Perry cannot walk away from it as if it did not happen.

We ask that you pass comprehensive reform and address this critical issue before Congress adjourns for the year.

By the way, Romney is destructive to Conservatism. So 2012 was effectively a wash.
Didn’t you arrive at Hot Air at the november 2011 open enrollment along with all the other Romneybots? Yes, yes you did. Sure glad you guys were able to sabotage 2012, a banner year that was set to be a landslide for conservatism, right up until Romney won the nomination.

You whined like a stuck pig that Gingrich didn’t win the primaries, vowing to vote for Obama in a petulant tantrum. Take a look at Gingrich’s ratings on immigration from Numbers USA.

Do you really hate conservatism that much? Yup, you do.

V7_Sport on March 28, 2014 at 9:02 PM

I was not focused on immigration in 2012 as I was not looking at the fact that it would increase the vote for Democrats by between 10 and 20 million votes giving them effective permanent majority. But do feel free to go look at my arguments against NEWT on his immigration stance. It was not friendly.

Summary: Mitt Romney’s record as Governor does not indicate a commitment to a conservative judicial philosophy.

His judge appointees revealed at best “no philosophical or partisan pattern” (Boston Globe), or at worst a liberal and even radical tilt. He sought out feminists and radical homosexual groups in his judicial selection process. He was inconsistent in his pronouncements on judicial activism, allowing it to occur under his watch (with “gay marriage”) while simultaneously urging others to fight it. How then could we expect him to keep his recent promises to appoint constitutional conservatives to the bench if he is elected President?

What sort of attorneys would he name to his Justice Department? As Governor, his Chief Legal Counsels advised him to implement unconstitutional policies: implementing “gay marriage” without legislative authorization, and forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense morning-after abortion pills.

Are achieving “diversity” and “non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” still core values for Romney in his appointments?

This commercial is HUGE! I mean huge. This shows that Ted Cruz has what it takes to really get us ALL fired up. He is the opposite of the issue skirting double talking diffident Romney. This man, the firebrand and debate champion, and Hispanic, is going to go all the way. Now is his opportunity. He shouldn’t think that he needs to sit around and wait until he gets older. It’s now that these unique circumstances have called him to the fore. Go with it.

And I like him a lot more than Rand Paul, even though I’m a full on libertarian. I’m not 100% sure about Rand’s foreign policy, but it’s much more than that. I don’t think Paul has that Cruz aura of unreserved indomitable toughness and resolution. There’s a little bit of that wishy-washiness in Paul when you see him hedging a bit with some of his libertarian or even socially conservative positions. And the truth is, as far as Reagonesque libertarianism, Cruz is going to be almost as good as Paul, without the potential negatives.

Worst of all for Rand Paul is that he wouldn’t unify us completely. Paul would be a lot better than Romney, but that’s not saying much. Cruz will get us all fired up and all unified. Few others can do that, and lack of unity is our greatest danger (remember the “missing white vote” that Romney inspired). Cruz will unify us, and he will appeal strongly to independents that will like his certitude and intelligence and character.